Hey guys im setting up this thread to discuss the differences and similarities between two popular athiest philosophies, nihilism and absurdism. Now if you are christian and want to come to this server to insult us athiest and try to force your religion on us, PLZ DONT!!!
I am not trying to insult your religion, just discuss an interesting topic with my fellow athiests. All other post will be taken down with a week of posting.

You have two versions of the same thread. I think this is the more recent one.

Anyway, nihilism and absurdism both recognize that meaning is an abstract mental concept and therefore nothing has meaning in the absence of an interpreter. Real is what exists even after you stop believing in it, so meaning isn’t traditionally real.

Both conflate purpose, meaning, and value. They say that if there is no inherent value and there is no inherent purpose, you’re free to do whatever. The subjective values and reasons you hold onto can be important, even if they aren’t objectively real, or you can live as though nothing is important to you.

Nihilism isn’t a complete life philosophy so much as it is a philosophical observation, the observation that the universe is inherently meaningless. Absurdism can mean simply noticing that things are absurd, like the term ‘absurdist comedy’, but (if I remember correctly) I think Absurdism was also the name for Camus’ personal philosophy. If you want to know more about Camus’ personal philosophy, I suggest you read his books. If you want an easier read, you can read The Stranger, a short novel possibly illustrating how Camus feels about the absurdity of existence.

One thing I think was weird about Nietzsche was how he spoke as though someone who does what I said earlier and “holds onto their subjective values and reasons” is no longer a nihilist. That’s kind of semantical of me, though. Nietzsche thought that people who refused to hold subjective values, and reasons for existence, were essentially pathetic cowards. Nietzsche believed in cultivating the ego and scultping the personality to harness the divine, creative energy which flows through all “great men” and helped them forge modern society.

>>13510If one prints out enough copies of them, compresses and heats the stacks of copies into a kind of plywood, cuts that wood into the right shapes and then nails or screws it together, they would have a chair.

Or if the monitor they are looking at this picture on happens to be a CRT, they could easily use it as a chair. Or a wrecking ball...

In Theravada Buddhism, a person can become a god, and during godhood attain a state of enlightenment which results in ending the cycle of rebirth. Some of the final stages of this cycle involve letting go of the will to live, followed by letting go of the will to exist in any form. Losing the will to live or exist at all happens exclusively in god form. After losing the will to exist, conciet, restlessness, and ignorance go away too. Then, nirvana is attained and the person isn’t born again.

>>13637Sure, that pretty much sums up the "in the image of God" that Christians have, but I don't see the metaphorical dumping of the glass taking place in any material sense.

I see that coming to realize one's part in the whole--that one is the part of the one in some sense--is good for the spirit, but I don't ever see you getting dumped back into the ocean until you're dead.

The ego will always continue to exist in the world, as we are all separate entities in the world.
Once you've come to the realization that you are part of the whole, you don't feel bad when the ego is poked, and that's one of the differences between someone with a more mature spiritual outlook and a person that's an ego maniac.

>>13643There is no "dumping back" because we never left the ocean,the waves affect everybody even if you don't see it.After having this realization you will treat the ego as it really is,an entity that has it's own desires.
And in the end all your problems are cause by that same desire.

Hello guys, I am putting up this board to debate the differences and similarities of nihilism and absurdism, im not here to debate the falsehoods and truths of these two religious/philosophical views and beliefs, just to compare the similarities and differences as I previously stated. And if you are religious, plz do not come to this board and try to force your beliefs on us athiests, not trying to insult your religion, just talk to my fellow nihilists and absurdists.

if you'll grant me a moment of your precious time, I am compelled to share with you a thought that has been gnawing away at my mind for the better half of my life.

With every fiber of my being do I believe that it is high time for the silent majorities of this world to step forward and begin pointing out truths however unpleasant they may be to be made aware of.

The time has come to stop patting ourselves on our collectiv(ist) backs with self-serving platitudes and at the very least begin pointing out the worst sides of our nature. The better the lighting, the easier the source of an issue can be determined and brought under control where it belongs. It is time to stop remaining silent, as if guilt-stricken for some known reason. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is a sentiment I find myself subscribing to rather ubiquitously these days. The Ears have Walls don’t you know...

Using easily recognizable signs and communication to hold certain creature's noses into the mess of their own making until they comprehend this sort of attitude will no longer be tolerated here. Surely you have housebroken pets before and you know full well what I'm talking about. The sweet combination of tar and feathers never ceases to jump mind...

There is a time and place for everything. If you plan on becoming patient 0 of a brand-spanking-new and particularly virulent form of plague by routinely filling the basement of our building with any all sorts of the most revolting waste the food industry can summon from our nightmares, perhaps a civilized neighborhood is not the right place for you or your ilk: your welcome among us is lessening with each inconsiderate act we witness.

Please bear in mind: many of you are guests we welcomed with open arms, only to find you voiding your bowels on the accomplishments of our culture, our ancestors... Quite literally spitting on the graves of your host's ancestors... In what human society is such behavior encouraged or even tolerated, pray tell..?

The German State lacking the ability and/or will to enforce the standards of civilized surroundings we grew up with and got used to, leaving the remaining locals to fend for ourselves and make their own justice, I shall at the very least do my very best to make as many people as possible aware of the issue; by repeatedly declaring the basement area a Bio-hazard zone signposting accordingly until the sorely needed lesson sinks - in or I run out of money for paper and ink... This is after all the Age of Information.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Listen. In respect to anyone you dislike, it’s you who are untermensch and probably worse than them. I don’t know anything about the supposed usefulness of rubbing a dog’s nose in shit, so I removed many of the more vitriolic parts of my post. Just know that perfection is a psychotic pursuit which only hastens an entitiy’s destruction. Now, fuck off and try to have fun with the remainder of your shitty life.

Rules:
1. Capitalism is not authoritarian
2. Communism can be on any level
3. Communism is greed fueled by authoritarianism
4. If it gives rise to or forced communism it is communist.
5. If it gives rise to capitalism then it is capitalist.
6. ????
7. Profit!

>>13649Capitalism leads to economic authoritarianism.
Unless you have a partially soci​​alist government to do things like break up trusts and monopolies, provide welfare and enforce standards for products, services, and working conditions, capitalism eventually reverts to feudalism.
Those who own, rule.

You probably think the free market is a fair arbiter, but capitalism is built on the principal that some will have while others will not. Without poverty and deprivation, there's no incentive to work or buy. On the other hand, some will acquire great wealth and surplus, which they have no incentive to share--and again you need an at least partially soci​alist government to tax them and use the profits to elevate the least productive entities in the system before you have a communist revolution on your hands.

Then look at what's happening in China and Russia, both countries where the "communist" governments opened the floodgates to capitalist investment, saving either from complete destitution. It turns out a little capitalism in a communist country leads to substantial, sustainable growth--but only if you have an repressive government willing to disappear business moguls who break the rules.

Capitalism can give rise to communist revolution, and communism itself is becoming capitalist.

I have read in the Catholic Catechism which says emotions are not good or bad but should be controlled by reason and will. Emotions can help a person intuit good or evil, and are good only insofar as they help someone do good (not when the vices pervert them). When someone lives morally, emotions reach their consummation.

How should emotions affect moral judgements? The Catechism is just one example.

I'm not sure that there any problems with my question. For definitions, you would probably already have an idea of what the words mean.

For adding context, I think you are saying to limit the thread to a particular instance (like can compassion justify stealing?). What I'm trying to do is learn more generally how emotions determine morality. Maybe with some yardsticks.

And not all ethical systems are filled with exceptions. Stoics and Kantians could answer my question more simply. To them, emotions go against reason-morality is performed by reason-so there would be no impact of emotions on moral reasoning.

But maybe my example is confusing? I could elaborate on the meaning of the Catechism-what Catholics think living morally is-though it seems unnecessary.

So im having ethics class in uni, i gotta do presentation about hans jonas. Pretty chill, easy reading, but i have to propose a few questions for debating in class i can only think of one. So anyone got ideas what could be cool debate around that dude?